Kansas Rejects Coal!

Despite Kansas' reputation for not being particularly at the cutting edge of scientific controversy, Bob Park reports:

EMISSIONS: "THIS DOESN’T LOOK LIKE KANSAS," DORTHY [sic] SAID.
The Kansas Department of Health yesterday rejected a permit for a proposed
coal fired power plant saying emissions threaten health and environment.
It was the first government agency to cite CO2 in denying a permit, in
keeping with a Supreme Court ruling in April that EPA must treat CO2 is a
pollutant, http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN07/wn040607.html . "Quite
simply," Governor Sibelius [sic] said, "we have an obligation to be good
stewards of this state."

This is great! Maybe there's not that much wrong with Kansas after all?

Local news report here; Grist has already discussed this as well.

Unfortunately, the CNN report which implies this might not hold up is probably realistic. Still it's good to raise people's awareness that electricity generation is the biggest part of the problem, and a few people obsessively unplugging microwaves won't really help that much.

Soapbox time: The coal people should get nothing until they they get sequestration working. We should be open to sequestration (and minimally destructive mining practices) though, and we should all, producers and consumers, get used to the idea that energy is going to cost much more than it does now.